The title of this first entry poses a most important question. Why write a blog on psychoanalytic field theory? Don’t we have too many psychoanalytical theories already? Do we need yet another one? These questions are indeed valid, and I shall try to answer them by attempting to clarify what is field theory all about, at least from my point of view.

A first problem that emerges when discussing psychoanalytical field theory stems from the assumption that it is just one more psychoanalytical theory, to be placed side by side with others, such as drive theory, topographic theory, structural theory, object relations theory, and the like. This is not the case. There is not one psychoanalytic field theory, but a set of such theories, which bear a family resemblance among them, but are also as different as the members of any given family can be.

And what do they have in common, which is this family resemblance? What field theories share is a theory building strategy, a particular way of constructing theory that clearly differs from that of classical psychoanalysis. Everything here hinges on how we conceive psychic determination. Is it a linear cause and effect sequence, an instance of circular causality, or is it something else altogether, to be studied in its own terms?

Aristotle described four kinds of causation: material, formal, final, and efficient causes. Francis Bacon, who put forward the modern concept of science, recognized only the material and efficient ones, but our usual understanding of determination is that of an efficient cause —i.e., a discrete event that precedes and induces another event, called its effect, which would not have happened without the former. Therefore, we have two events, A and B; A happens before B, A causes B, but B does not cause A, and nothing happens (a change or a movement) without some previous cause. This way of thinking works quite nicely when dealing with material objects such as balls on a billiards table, or with similar natural objects such as the Sun, planets, and asteroids, but what happens when have to tackle more complex situations, particularly those involving living beings?

It then became apparent that causality in living systems always turned back upon itself, so that a cause brought about an effect, and then the latter acted upon its own cause, modifying it and originating new effects, which would again turn back on their cause, thus generating a continuously evolving circle, in which any given point would act alternatively as cause and effect. This is the model of circular causality, which was developed by the new sciences of Cybernetics and General Systems Theory, since the second quarter of the Twentieth Century. This was bound to have an impact on psychoanalysis, which had relied from the beginning on an explanatory model of linear causality —at least, for its metapsychological theorizing, for in its clinical thinking, as in the Freudian concept of “afterwardsness” (Nachträglichkeit), that is, the deferred traumatic reactions to potentially traumatogenic experiences that had not been traumatic when they actually occurred, the sequence was reversed so that a later event would re-signify the original one (après-coup).

Now, both linear causality and circular (cybernetic) causality are temporal models of explanation, in that they assume temporal sequences for a determinant chain of events, albeit the former poses a linear evolution and the latter a recurrent one. But there is yet another model of determination that completely leaves aside the temporal dimension and explains things on the basis of simultaneous events. Such atemporal model is what we call a field theory.

Field theories emerged from physics, when it was found out that some physical phenomena, such as magnetism and gravity, could best be described and accounted for by postulating the existence of a field, in which all the relevant elements coexisted and had a simultaneous mutual influence on all others. A change or movement in any point of such field would necessarily induce changes in all the other points, and no change or movement could occur in any point without the participation of all others. When one chooses this kind of narrative, the terms “cause” and “effect” lose their meaning, since any occurrence in the field needs be seen as an expression of its totality.

This way of thinking, which implied a different epistemology from that which was traditional in the natural sciences, was soon brought to the conceptual field of psychology. Its emphasis on the whole as determining the parts was obviously akin to the thought of Gestalt theorists, such as Kholer, Koffka, and Goldstein. For them, the whole was always prior to, more than, and more elementary that the sum of the parts. This was obviously compatible with field theories. So, the field entered the realm of psychological theorizing through the work of thinkers and writers such as Kurt Goldstein, Kurt Lewin, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. It was just a question of time for this kind of theorizing to come to the psychoanalytic discourse.

Recent publications tend to suggest that psychoanalytic field theory was introduced by Madeleine and Willy Baranger, in Buenos Aires in the 1960s, and indeed theirs was a most valuable contribution. But the first such theory was that of Harry Stack Sullivan, in the 1940’s. Sullivan had had a personal relationship with Lewin, and they had influenced each other in their respective field theories. The Barangers shunned Lewin’s approach, which was presumably too physically oriented for their taste, and they preferred Merleau-Ponty’s humanistic and philosophical thinking on the matter. But they had both been students, co-workers, supervisands, and —in the case of Willy— analysand of Enrique Pichon-Rivière, pioneer of psychoanalysis and group analysis in Argentina. Pichon-Rivière had been clearly influenced by Sullivan, and often quoted Lewin, so that there is a continuity in holistic thinking, from Gestalt Theory, through Goldstein, Lewin, Sullivan, Pichon-Rivière, and Merleau-Ponty, to the Barangers.

Another line of development in the evolution of field theory in psychoanalysis comes through the theory and practice of Group Analysis. What we now know as group analysis grew from two independent roots: one in Britain, in the work of S. H. Foulkes, and the other in Argentina, in that of Pichon-Rivière. Although Foulkes openly disclaimed any Lewinian influence on his approach, he had incorporated the Gestalt thought and methods through his work with Kurt Goldstein. Foulkes did not use the term “field”, but his concept of a group matrix, in which there is an interweaving of all factors —personal, interpersonal, group, institutional, and social— which determines everything that happens, is clearly a field concept.

Pichon-Rivière, on the other hand, spoke of the field, and his conception included intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal factors in their confluence, emphasizing the impact of cultural, social, and political events. But he was keenly interested in the dynamic properties of the field and its evolution over time. This led him to develop a theory of the analytic process, as a spiral dialectic process. Quite conscious of the similarities and differences between their respective theories, Willy Baranger wrote, in 1979, an article in which he compared his concept of the analytic field with that of Pichon-Rivière’s of the spiral process.

All these points I intend to discuss in further entries to this blog, and I shall then include some references for those readers who require them. This brief text was only intended as an introduction to the path I intend to tread, with those of you who wish to accompany me in this journey. Of course, any comments on your part will be welcome.

So, what is my answer to my original question? I strongly feel that field theorizing offers us a new look on psychoanalysis. It is not just another alternative theory, but a new perspective from which to regard everything we already know about our discipline —its theories, techniques, practices, and values. There may be no need to discard previous theories, but they certainly look different when seen with this gaze.Of course, no one can —or should— be asked to assume a new epistemology, when she or he feels well-served by a more traditional one. But I think I can safely assume that anyone who visits this page is sympathetic towards, or at least interested in, field theory. So, I shall continue with this task, and find out together where it takes us.

A new perspective--and very much welcome. Looking forward to following your blog.

Reply

Juan -Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 09:39:42 pm

Thank you. I am glad that you are enjoying it.

Reply

Sylvia Perera

3/29/2016 07:00:34 pm

How does this compare with Jung's concept of synchronicity. I remember that Lewin was influenced by Jung's work.

Svein Tjelta

1/16/2016 01:26:44 am

As a group analyst and psychoanalytical psychotherapist I find this initiative most welcome as an integrating and synthesizing perspective formulating explicit what has implicit been there in the universe of phenomena, opening up posibilities for new developments.

Reply

Juan -Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 09:38:29 pm

Hello Svein. It´s nice to meet you here.
In my own approach to what I conceive to be the unity of psycho-analysis and group-analysis, I rely on the holistic understanding of the complexity of analytic experience provided by the confluence of a field theory and a process theory. I shall try to convey some of this in the evolution of this blog and the ensuing dialogue. I count on your participation in this project.

Reply

Bruce Oppenheimer

1/16/2016 02:21:59 am

Thank you for the interesting and clear exposition of field theory. I want to know more. Intuitively, field theory makes more sense than many other theories. Please put me on your mailing list.
Your writing is crystal clear!

Reply

Juan -Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 09:12:02 pm

Thank you, Bruce, for your kind comments. You shall certainly be included in IFTA´s mailing list. I will go on writing and posting on the subject, and I expect your feed-back.

Reply

Carla Penna, PhD Brazil

1/16/2016 04:59:15 am

This initiative is very important because field theory brings in fact a new way of understanding what happens in the consulting room, getting together the intrapersonal, the interpersonal and the transpersonal in horizontal and vertical dimensions, using Pichon-Rivière terms. It is not possible anymore to left apart the influence of the context in our daily practice. Field Theory is a gift from Latin America to psychoanalysis revealing how our rich and hybrid environment contributed for a special way of conceiving psychoanalitic thinking. In addition field theory might become an important bridge between psychoanalysis and group-analysis. Thank you Juan for this blog and for this inspiring and deep first post !!!

Reply

Juan -Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 09:09:07 pm

Agreed! One of our present field theories did emerge in Buenos Aires, in the teaching of Enrique Pichon-Rivière, and was later formulated by his disciples Willy and Madeleine Baranger. Other such theories are Kurt Lewin's, Harry Stack Sullivan's, S. H. Foulkes's, and Antonino Ferro's Bionian reformulation of the Barangers' theory.
I have, for quite a few years now, advocated that a holistic approach, such as that provided by field and process theories, show the essential unity of psychoanalysis (particularly in its relational perspective) and group analysis.
I am glad to have you here, Carla.

Reply

Lorie

1/16/2016 08:17:55 am

Upon first reading my thoughts are maybe this theory allows us to hang all the others in a cohesive manner.

Reply

Juan -Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 08:58:52 pm

Your idea is consistent with my contention that field theory is an epistemological proposal, rather than jus another theory. If this were true, then we would expect it to accommodate and give a new meaning to the other theories and their results, when placed within a new conceptual frame.
Your comment is brief, but substantial. Thanks, and keep posting.

Reply

Sylvia Brinton Perera

1/16/2016 12:13:52 pm

Jung's interest in the causa finalis is relevant here, too, and his sense of archetypal determinants unfolding through complexes or self states that are active and shared in the relational field. I look forward to this discussion.

Reply

Juan -Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 08:53:11 pm

Yes, final causes have been much maligned in the present day scientific view, but I remember what a physiologist used to say: "Teleology is a mistress with whom no biologist would be seen in public, but without whom he would not be able to live." Leaving aside the sexist undertones of this witty remark, it is strikingly true: you cannot at all study living beings, in general, and humans, in particular, without asking about intentions and ends. This is something the young Freud learnt from his philosophy teacher, Franz Brentano, who developed the concept of the intentionality of all psychic acts. Nonetheless, Freud never mentions Brentano, perhaps on account of his own rejection of religion (Brentano was a former priest and still a believer).
The question of archetypes and how they develop into archetypal images, and their relation with the psychoanalytic concept of internal objects would require a more extensive discussion.
Thank you for your comment.

I'm wondering if you have read Bill Coburns book, Psychoanalytic Complexity: Clinical Attitudes for Therapeutic Change? It seems like you are talking about something similar, but give it a different a name, like some of the other people you mention. You all seem to be highlighting the complexity of human behavior and how many different things influence us simultaneously, which seems like an important thing for any psychoanalyst to incorporate into his/her theories.

Reply

Juan -tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 08:40:11 pm

No, I have not read Coburn's book, but I agree with you that we are probably speaking in different tongues about the same subject, which is human complexity, although I would rather speak of the complexity of human experience, and not behavior, but this is just an instance of the many different perspectives that are needed in order to approach and talk about our primary intuition of what it means to be human.
Thank you for your comment.

Reply

Rachel A. Chejanovsky

1/16/2016 02:52:31 pm

I like the wide perspective on FieldTheory Juan resumes in this article.
Will be glad to follow this post.

Reply

Juan Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 01:45:19 pm

Thank you, Rachel. I shall keep posting and expect your comments.

Reply

Augusto Escribens

1/16/2016 11:30:37 pm

The mere possibility of providing for circular causality in psychoanalysis is a powerful reason for having a blog on field theory. After reading and paticipating in a panel on the Spanish translation of a book by Fritz Pearls, and more recently getting acquinted with some of the very insightful work by Judith Butler, I get to the conclusion that we psychoanalsts better go for ways of looking at our own "facts" in ways that offer the possiblity of turning upside down our treasured convictions. Congratulations on your important initiative, and I'll be reading.

Reply

Juan Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 01:38:33 pm

You are absolutely right, Augusto. Field theories represent another way of ordering our data, and this gives birth to new "facts". Linear causality is one kind of order, circular causality is another, and field determination is yet a third one. And they all generate quite different pictures of what is happening. And yet they still tell us about something about the unfathomable real (Kant's "Ding an sich"). It is something akin to the various kinds of projections in cartography: the territory is always the same, but the various maps construct very different images of it.
Your comment and congratulations are quite welcome. Keep posting.

Reply

Joan Fogel

1/18/2016 09:11:39 am

Very welcome, thank you. I am also looking forward to following (at least to trying to follow) your lead here.

Reply

Juan Tubert-Oklander

1/19/2016 01:27:01 pm

Thank you, Joan. Keep in touch. Your comments will be apppreciated.

Reply

Jane Burka

3/29/2016 11:33:00 am

Juan, your clarity and capacity to both synthesize and differentiate are most welcome. We might add the inextricable influence of community and culture to the field affecting both patient and analyst.

Thank you for your interesting introduction in field theory.
I wonder whether phenomenology and field theory represent
similar perspectives?

Reply

John Sloane

3/29/2016 01:06:06 pm

Thank you for such a clear, if brief, account of field theory, distinguishing it from linear cause and effect and dynamic systems, as well as intentionality (some measure of personal purposeful choice on the part of individuals and/or some underlying, overarching, all-pervading unconscious Other. If not holy, then holistic. Intriguing but awfully hard to capture in words!

Reply

Güler Fişek, Turkey

3/30/2016 08:05:24 am

Thank you Juan for a very clear introduction to field theory..Simultaneous causation by intra-, inter-, and transpersonal factors all intertwined with cultural, social and political complexities is helpful in beginning to at least try to understand all of the events that surround us and our clients in today's world, at least in our corner of it. I am an individual therapist but I am constantly aware of the web that surrounds us in the consulting room.

do keep me informed..

Reply

Suzi Shoshani

2/18/2017 12:37:49 pm

I like very much your clear explanation of the firld theory.
As a clinical psychologist and a group analyst I am practicing combined therapy and have alot of thoughts about the effects on the patient, the group and me. The princeples of field theory in this aspects can help a lot to understand.
I hope to learn in generaly from this blog and to think about combined therapy and field theory. Thank you Juan and I will be glad to follow your blog

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.

Juan Tubert-Oklander, MD, PhD is a psychoanalyst and group analyst who lives and practices in Mexico City. He has written and published a great number of papers and book chapters, as well as six books —three in Spanish and three in English. He intends to use this blog in order to publish reflections and discussion about field theories —both in psychoanalysis and in other disciplines— and invites readers to send their comments and contributions.